In the previous post on MILLERWRITES, I went through the first 10 of the 18 statements Rachel Maddow made, as given below. This copy is how it came to me, and this is enough material for me to address without getting too much of a headache; though I have since seen the video where RM goes on from here with a longer, and continually disjointed speech in which her undying loyalty to Barack Obama's presidency is unwavering.
I will start here with the eleventh statement.
"And nobody is taking away anyone's guns."
But is it not clear that liberals/progressives/Democrats want to take away everyone's guns? Of course they do. That's what "gun control" is all about, and only so far, has that intent been stymied. To point out that it is not happening now, as if that means nobody wants such controls to be enforced, is simply dishonest.
"And taxes have not gone up."
Again Rachel. Are you suggesting that taxes are not about to rise through the roof? Now that the election is over, and what people in the know are calling "Taxmageddon" is just around the corner, and Obamacare is soon to be implemented (Such a coincidence that its staggering costs will only become apparent to the masses after the election!), taxes will be going up and up and up. I gave RM a "TRUE" here, but I also have to give her a "DISHONEST" for the amazing two-sided falsehood she includes. On one hand, she implies that she believes taxes not going up is a good thing (otherwise, the claim would not be listed here as a reassurance), and on the other hand she knows full well this supposed positive state will not last long. A truthful dishonesty is a lie.
Yipes! I just went back to the picture above and noticed that I skipped one of RM's "facts". Sorry about that folks. Here it is, albeit out of its proper order.
"And Climate Change is real."
Not sure why the words are capitalized in the picture, as if "Climate Change" deserved the same respect as a proper proper noun, but that was probably some transcriber's idea, not RM's.
Yes Rachel, climates do change. That is true. I remember when global cooling was feared by our best meteorologists. They tried to teach us that we all would soon be freezing to death. Too bad they were not smart enough to attach any and all weather phenomenon to their fear mongering as our modern
scientists have done today. If we had listened to them, perhaps we would have turned up the smokestacks and reduced auto engine efficiency so that the green house effect would save the planet from the looming ice age.
Back to the point. Is "man made" climate change real? We know that man made political posturing is real, and man made scientific peer pressure is real, and that man made attempts at economic control are real, but has anyone proven that the minuscule temperature change observed is man caused? NO. Average temperatures have gone up and down in cycles for many decades. The same scientists alarming us now (with political incentive) tell us the earth has been through multiple ice ages. What caused those many back and forth shifts in climate? Did someone simply forget to blame mankind for those variations?
Yes, "climate change is real" but just put your coat on or take it off, and you'll be OK. Don't let them get you with the old "bandwagon fallacy".
"And the deficit is dropping, actually."
I don't know what she is talking about here except for the small blip on the graph, but I'm impressed with the ending qualifier; "actually". That's like the "actually" a fifth grade liar tacks on to his lie about whether he did his homework. He thinks it makes the blatancy of his claim more credible, but it just draws attention.
Again RM suggests that she believes lowering the deficit is a good thing, but would she not advocate for everything "worthwhile" like Big Bird being federally funded, even IF he (she?) effected the deficit upward?
If in fact the deficit is dropping (and how in fact can it be measured since the country has been working without a budget to measure it by?), isn't that only accomplished by raising the national debt? Actually?
[Another point: If the small drop in the deficit is reassuring enough that we can continue with our present economic leadership's policies, then why turn the world upside down over the minor changes we see in the climate?]
"And Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction."
You can not prove a negative. Such WMDs were not found when we searched Iraq, this is true. But much evidence remains that they were there. Ask the poisoned Kurds what they think. One Iraqi General testified that they were transferred to Syria just before our invasion.
Even so, I would call RM's reference to this subject very childish. Are there people using Saddam's WMDs as evidence that Obama did not win Ohio? What is the connection here?
"And the Moon landing was real."
Again with the capital! Oh well.
And again with the weird reference. Is she seriously associating the kooks who suggest the moon landing was a fake with those many world wide intelligence services who concluded that Iraq had WMDs? I wish I were more up on identifying logical fallacies, but even though I don't know all their names, I do recognize their faces, and this type of argument is in the fallacy of relevance family.
"And FEMA is not building concentration camps."
If I were to give this one a TRUE I would be violating my own stated principle that one can not prove a negative. But, FEMA is probably not building concentration camps anyway (If they were, they would probably be unsafe!).
This is still another fallacy of relevance that RM is using to control the reaction of her audience. This type of ad hominem attack on all who are not her backers should be shunned as divisive and bullying.
"And UN election observers are not taking over Texas."
And I would wish them luck if they did try some kind of actual military type "take over", as RM is reprehensibly suggesting is the topic. When noting that the UN did actually send observers to watch polls, did someone say they were "taking over Texas"? I don't think so. And if such a phrase was used, did it not simply mean that the UN was confronting the state's (and the country's) sovereignty in an unprecedented and offensive manner? And that none of us should abide such actions?
If so, then isn't RM denying, or seeming to deny the validity of such objections? I would rather hear someone discuss the facts and reveal his/her stand, than see them leave such uncomfortable implications on the table.
"And moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism."
But Rachel, though I give you credit for making a TRUE statement, you must give me credit for recognizing the straw man nature of the statement. You use the word "moderate" as if that were the same word we would all use to describe new regulations imposed by this administration. It is not. You set up a moderate straw man, so that you can knock it down in public, but others are trying to address the very liberal, and yes, communistic (overreaching, unreasonable, government controlled) regulations that take too much management authority away from individuals. Your tone is derisive and dismissive of real concerns held by people who would rather discuss real time effects of overblown regulations, but it seems you would rather shut them up by misrepresenting their concerns. If I may be so bold, I would say, that's not very nice.
Thanks for wading through all this with me.
To all who hold to the idea that Rachel Maddow is like the Queen of intelligent argument, and that her views are unassailable, I don't get it. She is likely convinced of her own positions because of such fallacious thinking as is represented here, but I suggest that we should be able to identify such weaknesses and find a better path to a better discussion.
By the way...MILLERWRITES copy is COPYRIGHTED. Why cut and paste when you can simply copy the link?